Author
ROMA cutoff point [%]
SENSITIVITY [%]
SPECIFICITY [%]
PPV [%]
NPV [%]
All
PM
M
All
PM
M
All
PM
M
All
PM
M
Moore et al. [15]
M-27.7
PM-13.1
88.7
76.5
92.3
74.7
74.8
74.7
60.1
33.8
74.0
93.9
95
92.6
Molina et al. [19]
M-27.7
PM-13.1
90.1
74.1
95.2
87.7
88.9
83.1
74
44.4
88.9
95.8
96.6
92.5
Moore et al. [17]
M-27.7
PM-13.1
88.1
81.3
90.2
74.9
74.2
76
38.1
17.8
56.1
97.3
98.3
95.8
Anton et al. [14]
M-39.7
PM-13.9
75.9
77.8
63.9
81.8
79.3
97.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
Partheen et al. [33]
M -26
PM-17.
-
75
75
-
81
87.1
-
60.7
62.8
-
90.7
90.7
Van Gorp et al. [22]
M- 12.5
PM-14.4
84.7
66.7
91.0
76.8
87.8
58.8
71
60.5
74.3
88.2
90.4
83.3
Novotny et al. [13]
M-37.7%
-
-
85.7
-
-
95
-
-
62.06
-
-
98.65
ROMA this study
M-27.7
PM-13.1
88
76.2
91.9
88.5
91.6
80.6
83
66.7
88.7
92.1
94.6
85.3
ROMA this study
M-41.1
PM-18.04
85.5
76.2
88.7
95.4
96.8
91.7
92.2
84.2
87.5
91.2
94.8
82.5
All – PM+M; PM – Premenopause; M – Postmenopause
Table 6:
Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of ROMA for the stratification of patients with a pelvic mass reported in the literature and found by us.
